Campsites closing at the end of the 2024 season
Comments
-
When booking in I noticed this pic of River Breamish before being refurbished. It was all grassy, no facilities and it always had spaces as I recall. Today all the SP are taken (I can't see an empty one) and the site appears almost full.
So how to turn underused sites and make them popular? Personally, put in toilet and showers, HS, SP. It appears that is what club site users want?
0 -
So how much would it cost to turn Nunnykirk into a fully serviced site with hard standings, a toilet block, and service pitches? It’s in a dip in the landscape, the rain (lots in Northumberland), means that the site gathers the water that falls from the sky. We can’t do anything about this. Have you ever been to Nunnykirk? Also, it’s a relatively long way from Rothbury or Morpeth.
By contrast, the Breamish site is a short way off the A697, with a decent shop at the petrol station and good walks and cycle routes from the site.
The reality is that Nunnykirk is a relatively long way from the facilities that most people want nowadays. Where are the site staff coming from?
In an ideal world, all sites (whatever they offer), would pay their way. Don’t get me wrong, I started my caravan holidays decades ago, on sites with no facilities at all. However, the world moves on, and unfortunately sites such as Nunnykirk, are appealing to fewer customers.
We could talk about the merits or otherwise of this all day. However it seems that the writing is on the wall for the “underperforming “ sites.
I would be interested to hear the views of other members as how to underused sites could be brought back into profitable. Or should the club subside those sites, and somehow get the staff to operate them?
0 -
I still recall the DG stating in the mag about there are different sites for all the members with there likes and dislikes, we have been in the club for nearly 40 yrs, we have used over 120 different club sites and well over 160 returns to a lot of these sites, spending over 1,000 pitch nights, we live in East Anglia and we have lost Mildenhall a few years back (our favourite site) only 1 site in Suffolk now and none in Essex, we use Thetford forest site for many of our mid week breaks, but find that less than half full and fear for its retention next time the club snatch the sites we like from us. once you leave the Lowestoft site you won's get to another going South until you go into Kent !
I don't always believe the the lack of a toilet block is the only reason for low use, speaking with others state we don't go any more because we find it hard to get a TV picture now as the trees have got taller, why not put TV points in, and update the electric supply so it don't go low,
Why not do an survey and see why people are not using these sites.
I rally a lot weekends, which is the main reason I stay in the club.
1 -
I would be interested to hear the views of other members as how to underused sites could be brought back into profitable. Or should the club subside those sites, and somehow get the staff to operate them?
Surely the club would have already gone through that process? I imagine most, if not all the sites included for closure are held on leases. Had they been owned outright one would have thought the Club would have already updated them. If leases are soon up for renewal and increase in the lease would just be more nails in the coffin. They could reduce the price, perhaps a single all inclusive price. But as I have mentioned before you will need many more people staying just to stand still. I am sure the Club have already "subsidised" these sites but there comes a point where those costs mount and it becomes totally uneconomic. I think what the Club is saying that if they keep these sites open and take the losses they won't be in such a good position to upgrade other sites where that is a possibility?
David
0 -
I for one will miss Dockray Meadow being on the network. Not that we visited many times but when we did it was always a delight. It’s a bit off the beaten track and we had to make a specific tour to include it. The red squirrels visiting your pitch was a magical experience. Shame that it couldn’t be viewed as an asset, rich in experience, rather than from a monetary perspective. Sad to see its demise.
3 -
It would be informative if the Club would give members some facts, figures and information for each of the sites they are planning to close.- for instance the number of overnight stays at each of those sites in 2013 compared with the most recent number for 2023 - so that members can see the extent of the decline and understand the reasons behind the decision to call time. Although we are Club members we really are kept in the dark.
1 -
Regarding the previous response. I think that says it all. “Not that we visited many times”. and “It’s a bit off the beaten track and we had to make a specific tour to include it”
Lovely though these sites are for some people they do not provide what most customers want now.
The reality is that the most profitable sites are within striking distance of “services”.
Good or bad, let’s just accept the reality of today’s world. Enjoy your stays, wherever they may be. Good night.
1 -
It was equally full when we were there at the end of June and has been on every visit we have made, all out of peak times. It’s a very popular site. Even more so now that it’s all hardstanding and the final bit of grass converted to service pitches. Except for the three tent pitches, which were also well populated during our last visit.
1 -
What lots of assumptions? It was grass - fact. It had no facilities - fact. It had always had spaces? I never used the photo to show anything about occupancy but merely to show how it was. However I do remember looking at availability before and a few drive in visits in peak it was always not well used. Btw the photo is 2002 and I've been told probably this time of year.
2 -
Presumably the Council members, whom we elect, will have all this information. Maybe they could enlighten us?
Saw a blog the other day where the question the Volgograd was posing was “ is the CAMC broke”. Well I don’t think for a moment that it is. However we do know from various pronouncements that times are tough. So maybe there is no real problem with these sites, per se, but the club has decided to axe some assets and these happen to be they!0 -
Exactly. Timbo is correct in saying you elect council members to make those decisions on behalf of the membership to free the rest of you from the need to do so. It’s surprising how many folk think they should be consulted over changes yet don’t put themselves forward for election.🤷🏻♂️
2 -
I do my bit by volunteering in other organisations and have been elected to various roles. If you stand for election you should be prepared to explain your stance on a number of issues relevant to the organisation. Once elected you should be prepared to report back to your electorate. How else do they know that the person they have elected is doing the job?
3 -
Correct TW. Club Council is made up of the Club Executive, Nominated Members and representatives from each of the regions and divisions, who are elected directly by the membership. If members want to have say in how the club operates or should operate, join your local division and go along to their meetings and make your views known there.
3 -
I am not asking for a say but would like more information.We get very little back from club council or executive committee - publishing the minutes of their meetings would be a start.
5 -
At least a bit more information than just "unsustainable" Are the sites leased or owned, were any alternatives considered?. Anything more would help understanding a little better. As it stands it is all down to under use, but one poster has pointed out there are 45 seasonal pitches in use on Nunnykirk!
As for sweetening the pill by pointing out what has been done in other areas, did we really need Dornafield when the Club already has four sites in the area?
peedee
2 -
Surely "unsustainable" means that it can’t continue as it is. That is, in this case, lack of use equals lack of income and a drain on resources. What more do you need to know?🤷🏻♂️
Rowena's second paragraph explains the situation well.
1 -
I asked a few years ago if Minutes from Regional and Local meetings were available, but never got an answer. Haven’t been able to find any no matter how deep I dig on CAMC website. You might need to be registered with a Region, or Local centre to get any details, but these are to all intents and purposes public type meetings, in a similar vein to LA meetings. It would be very useful if Members could access Minutes from Regional Meetings, as well as those of the AGM, as it would give an idea of what is happening throughout the different areas. Most of the Regions, Local Centres do have an active list of events and rallies.
The Club does publish its AGM minutes, and the Financial Statement each year, but beyond this, there’s very little that Members can reference in terms of how decisions have been arrived at, and any options discussed before major changes, closures, monies spent, etc… are made. It wouldn’t be practical to ask “ the Membership” as a whole on every operational issue, but other than trying to attend regional meetings, or the AGM, there doesn’t appear to be an obvious conduit of finding out about most of the major changes that come about. The most obvious thing that seems to happen, is that a decision is discussed and made, and the Membership gets to know after that decision is agreed. It’s the why, who and how bit that isn’t obvious.
3 -
Whether a business or not, it has to be financially viable and sustainable. It doesn’t have to or need to make huge profits but it needs to keep its head above water and generate sufficient income for growth. Otherwise, there would be no future at all. It's simple logic.
1 -
It is clearly not practical for members to have a say in every decision made by the Club. The structure should be robust enough for the right decisions to be made and to stand up to scrutiny. However communication from the management seems to be based on providing the minimal amount of information. As ET says we should have more information. Closing sites, whether justified or not, is always going to be controversial. The Club could of approached the way they announced this differently. It may have meant that this thread had 20 relies rather than 200! All they needed to do was the say something like the following. "We have monitored these sites over a number of years. Unfortunately year on year results of decreasing occupancy. We did investigate ways we might encourage more to stay but that has not worked. Unfortunately the option to improve and upgrade the sites was not available to us as they are all held on lease and the lease holders have indicated an unwillingness to extend the lease for a meaningful period so that we could spread the cost over a number of years in order to get a return on investment. So it was with real sadness the Club have decided there is no option but to close the sites listed." You can add or subtract what may or may not apply. It would hardly be commercially sensitive to publish such information.
David
11
